Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28768530›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2017

Complications and health-related quality of life after robot-assisted versus open radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of four RCTs.

Susanne Vahr Lauridsen, Hanne Tønnesen, Bente Thoft Jensen, Bruno Neuner, Peter Thind, Thordis Thomsen

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Health-related quality of life overview after different curative treatment options in muscle-invasive bladder cancer: an umbrella review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Robotics in urology.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Susanne Vahr LauridsenDepartment of Urology, Copenhagen University Hospital, 2112, Rigshospitalet, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. susanne.vahr@regionh.dk.ORCID 0000-0001-6045-4723
Hanne TønnesenClinical Health Promotion Centre, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospitals, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Bente Thoft JensenDepartment of Urology, Aarhus University Hospital and Centre of Research in Rehabilitation, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Bruno NeunerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Peter ThindDepartment of Urology, Copenhagen University Hospital, 2112, Rigshospitalet, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Thordis ThomsenAbdominal Centre, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Health and Medical Sciences, Rigshospitalet and University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Copenhagen University Hospital · DKAarhus University Hospital · DKCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEUniversity of Copenhagen · DKUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRadical cystectomy is associated with high rates of perioperative morbidity. Robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is widely used today despite limited evidence for clinical superiority. The aim of this review was to evaluate the effect of RARC compared to open radical cystectomy (ORC) on complications and secondary on length of stay, time back to work and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

methodsThe databases PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase and CINAHL were searched. A systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines and cumulative analysis was conducted. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined RARC compared to ORC were included in this review. We assessed the quality of evidence using the Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Data were extracted and analysed.

resultsThe search retrieved 273 articles. Four RCTs were included involving overall 239 patients. The quality of the evidence was of low to moderate quality. There was no significant difference between RARC and ORC in the number of patients developing complications within 30 or 90 days postoperatively or in overall grade 3-5 complications within 30 or 90 days postoperatively. Types of complications differed between the RARC and the ORC group. Likewise, length of stay and HRQoL at 3 and 6 months did not differ.

conclusionOur review presents evidence for RARC not being superior to ORC regarding complications, LOS and HRQoL. High-quality studies with consistent registration of complications and patient-related outcomes are warranted. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016038232.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicCystectomyHumansLength of StayPostoperative ComplicationsQuality of LifeRoboticsTreatment OutcomeClavien-Dindo classificationHealth-related quality of lifeOpen radical cystectomyPostoperative complicationsRobot-assisted radical cystectomy

Identifiers

PMID28768530
PMCPMC5541663
OpenAlexW2741266886

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.